DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gober (US 2008/0197122).
Regarding claim 1, Gober discloses an automobile windshield cover assembly comprising:
a cover (Fig 2A) having a front side coupled to a back side to define an interior space (space through which 20 is received; Fig 3; paragraph [0023]),
the cover comprising a rigid material (14; paragraph [0023]),
the cover being configured to be positioned across a windshield of an automobile (paragraph [0020]);
a heating element (20) being positioned within the interior space (paragraph [0023]);
a power source being electrically coupled to the heating element whereby the heating element is configured to produce heat when the power source is turned on (paragraph [0028]); and
wherein the heating element is arranged across the cover whereby the heating element is configured to produce heat across both the front side and the back side of the cover (20 spans across the cover and produces heat across the widths of both the front side and back side of the cover; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Gober discloses the cover further comprising a perimeter edge being coupled to and extending between the front side and the back side, the perimeter edge including a top end, a bottom end, a first lateral end, and a second lateral end (Figs 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 3, Gober discloses the cover comprising a crease (12d) being in each of the front side and the back side of the cover (Figs 2A and 2B), the crease extending from the top end to the bottom end of the perimeter edge, the cover being foldable along the crease to define a folded configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Gober discloses wherein the crease is positioned midway between the first lateral end and the second lateral end to define a first half and a second half of the cover, wherein the first half and the second half pivot together to form the folded configuration (Figs 2A and 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gober, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Barnes, Jr. et al. (US 9,862,259), hereinafter referred to as Barnes and Akin (US 8,431,868)
Regarding claim 5, Gober teaches the automobile windshield cover assembly comprises a series of fasteners (26; paragraph [0026]) configured to facilitate securement of the cover to the automobile. Gober fails to disclose a pair of flaps being coupled to and extending outwardly from opposite sides of cover wherein the pair of flaps is configured to facilitate securement of the cover to the automobile. However, Barnes teaches that it is known for a windshield cover to be provided with a pair of flaps (310 or 410; Fig 3 or Fig 4) being coupled to and extending outwardly from opposite sides of cover wherein the pair of flaps is configured to facilitate securement of the cover to the automobile and on the exterior of the automobile and allowing securement attachment by being inserted into the interior of the automobile between the window and door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Gober and further provide a pair of flaps as taught by Barnes in order to improve attachment of the cover assembly to automobile and prevent theft (Barnes: col 7, lines 34-39). Further, it would have been obvious to modify Gober with Barnes in order to provide the cover assembly on the exterior of the automobile, as taught by Akin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a heated windshield cover assembly, since it is known and taught by Akin.
Regarding claim 6, Gober as modified with Barnes teaches wherein each of the pair of flaps is coextensive with a length of a respective one of the opposite sides of the cover (Fig 4 of Barnes).
Regarding claim 7, Gober as modified with Barnes teaches wherein each of the pair of flaps extends downwardly from a top end of the cover along a respective one of the opposite sides whereby each of the pair of flaps is spaced from a bottom end of the cover (Fig 3 of Barnes).
Regarding claim 8, Gober as modified with Barnes teaches each of the pair of flaps further comprising a flexible material whereby each of the pair of flaps is configured to be positioned between a frame of the automobile and a door element of the automobile when the cover is positioned across the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from falling off of the windshield (Barnes: col 7, lines 34-39).
Regarding claim 9, Gober as modified with Barnes teaches wherein the door element is one of a door frame and a window.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gober, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Hansen et al. (US 7,718,923), hereinafter referred to as Hansen.
Regarding claim 10, although Gober teaches a power source, Gober is silent to a switch being electrically coupled to the power source to selectively turn the power source on and off. However, Hansen teaches that it is known for an automobile windshield cover assembly having a heating element and power source to have a switch being electrically coupled to the power source to selectively turn the power source on and off (Hansen: col 3, lines 8-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Gober with a switch coupled to the power source to selectively turn the power source on and off since such element is known, as taught by Hansen, and would provide greater control of the usage of the cover. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gober, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Raad (US 2020/0156449).
Regarding claim 11, Gober discloses further comprising an adhering element (26 or 28) being coupled to the cover, the adhering element configured to increase friction between the cover and the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from moving when the cover is positioned across the windshield of the automobile. Gober fails to disclose that the adhering element is an adhering panel being coupled to the cover, the adhering panel comprising a silicone material whereby the adhering panel is configured to increase friction between the cover and the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from moving when the cover is positioned across the windshield of the automobile. Raad teaches that it is known to utilize an adhering panel (110) coupled to a cover, the adhering panel comprising a silicone material (paragraph [0038]) whereby the adhering panel is configured to increase friction between the cover and the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from moving when the cover is positioned across the windshield of the automobile (the adhering layer adheres the material therefore cannot move). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Gober with an adhering panel comprising a silicone material since silicone material is known to be self-adhering, as taught by Raad. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Gober as modified with Raad, the adhering panel further comprising an adhering strip being coupled to the back side of the cover, the adhering strip being positioned along an outer edge of the back side (Gober Fig 3 shows the adhering elements 28a along the back side along an outer edge and modification with Raad teaches the elements being substitute with adhering strips).
Regarding claim 13, Gober as modified with Raad, wherein the adhering strip has a rectangular shape; it would have been obvious that the strip have a rectangular shape since it is understood to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a shape based on design choice as it does not affect the functionality of the device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Regarding claims 14-16, Gober as modified with Raad discloses the adhering panel further comprising an adhering pad being coupled to the back side of the cover, the adhering pad being spaced from an outer edge of the back side. Gober discloses a plurality of adhering elements (26), therefore one of the plurality is understood to be an adhering pad, and as modified the adhering pad further comprising a first pad being spaced from a second pad. Additionally, it would have been obvious that the pad have a circular shape since it is understood to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a shape based on design choice as it does not affect the functionality of the device. Further, providing a circular shape would be equivalent to the shape of the suction pad shown in Fig 2A. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gober in view of Hansen, Barnes, Akin, and Raad.
Regarding claim 17, Gober discloses an automobile windshield cover assembly comprising:
a cover having a front side, a back side (Figs 2A and 2B), and
a perimeter edge being coupled to and extending between the front side and the back side to define an interior space, the perimeter edge including a top end, a bottom end, a first lateral end, and a second lateral end (Figs 2-3),
the cover being configured to be positioned across a windshield of an automobile,
the cover comprising a rigid material including one or more of an aluminum material (paragraph [0025]) and a plastic material;
the cover having a crease (12d) being in each of the front side and the back side, the crease extending from the top end to the bottom end of the perimeter edge,
the crease (12d) being positioned midway between the first lateral end and the second lateral end to define a first half and a second half of the cover, the cover being foldable along the crease to define a folded configuration (Figs 2A and 2B),
wherein the first half and the second half pivot together to form the folded configuration (paragraph [0022]);
a heating element being coupled to the cover, the heating element being positioned within the interior space (Fig 3),
the heating element comprising a wire (30);
a power source being electrically coupled to the heating element whereby the heating element is configured to produce heat when the power source is turned on (Fig 3),
the power source comprising a battery (Fig 3);
wherein the heating element is arranged across the cover whereby the heating element is configured to produce heat across both the front side and the back side of the cover (20 spans across the cover and produces heat across the widths of both the front side and back side of the cover; Fig 1).
Although Gober teaches a power source, Gober is silent to a switch being electrically coupled to the power source to selectively turn the power source on and off. However, Hansen teaches that it is known for an automobile windshield cover assembly having a heating element and power source to have a switch being electrically coupled to the power source to selectively turn the power source on and off (Hansen: col 3, lines 8-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Gober with a switch coupled to the power source to selectively turn the power source on and off since such element is known, as taught by Hansen, and would provide greater control of the usage of the cover. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Gober teaches the automobile windshield cover assembly comprises a series of fasteners (26; paragraph [0026]) configured to facilitate securement of the cover to the automobile. Gober fails to disclose a pair of flaps being coupled to and extending outwardly from opposite sides of cover wherein the pair of flaps is configured to facilitate securement of the cover to the automobile. However, Barnes teaches that it is known for a windshield cover to be provided with a pair of flaps (310 or 410; Fig 3 or Fig 4) being coupled to and extending outwardly from opposite sides of cover wherein the pair of flaps is configured to facilitate securement of the cover to the automobile and on the exterior of the windshield and allowing securement attachment by being inserted into the interior of the automobile between the window and door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Gober and further provide a pair of flaps as taught by Barnes in order to improve attachment of the cover assembly to automobile and prevent theft (Barnes: col 7, lines 34-39). As modified, each of the pair of flaps being positioned on a respective one of the first lateral end and the second lateral end, whereby each of the pair of flaps is configured to be positioned between a frame of the automobile and a door element of the automobile when the cover is positioned across the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from falling off of the windshield, wherein the door element is one of a door frame and a window, as taught by Barnes. It would have been obvious that the material be a rubber material; the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Further, it would have been obvious to modify Gober with Barnes in order to provide the cover assembly on the exterior of the automobile, as taught by Akin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a heated windshield cover assembly, since it is known and taught by Akin.
Gober discloses further comprising an adhering element (26 or 28) being coupled to the cover, the adhering element configured to increase friction between the cover and the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from moving when the cover is positioned across the windshield of the automobile. Gober fails to disclose that the adhering element is an adhering panel being coupled to the cover, the adhering panel comprising a silicone material whereby the adhering panel is configured to increase friction between the cover and the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from moving when the cover is positioned across the windshield of the automobile. Raad teaches that it is known to utilize an adhering panel (110) coupled to a cover, the adhering panel comprising a silicone material (paragraph [0038]) whereby the adhering panel is configured to increase friction between the cover and the windshield thereby inhibiting the cover from moving when the cover is positioned across the windshield of the automobile (the adhering layer adheres the material therefore cannot move). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Gober with an adhering panel comprising a silicone material since silicone material is known to be self-adhering, as taught by Raad. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results. Gober as modified with Raad, the adhering panel further comprising an adhering strip being coupled to the back side of the cover, the adhering strip being positioned along an outer edge of the back side (Gober Fig 3 shows the adhering elements 28a along the back side along an outer edge and modification with Raad teaches the elements being substitute with adhering strips). Gober as modified with Raad, wherein the adhering strip has a rectangular shape; it would have been obvious that the strip have a rectangular shape since it is understood to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a shape based on design choice as it does not affect the functionality of the device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.) Gober as modified with Raad discloses the adhering panel further comprising an adhering pad being coupled to the back side of the cover, the adhering pad being spaced from an outer edge of the back side. Gober discloses a plurality of adhering elements (26), therefore one of the plurality is understood to be an adhering pad, and as modified the adhering pad further comprising a first pad being spaced from a second pad. Additionally, it would have been obvious that the pad have a circular shape since it is understood to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a shape based on design choice as it does not affect the functionality of the device. Further, providing a circular shape would be equivalent to the shape of the suction pad shown in Fig 2A. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Regarding claim 18, as modified above, Gober with Barnes discloses wherein each of the pair of flaps extends from the top end to the bottom end (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 19, as modified above, Gober with Barnes discloses wherein each of the pair of flaps extends downwardly from the top end along the respective one of the first lateral end and the second lateral end whereby each of the pair of flaps is spaced from the bottom end (Fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gober fails to disclose the amended limitations and that the heating element produce heat across both the front side and the back side of the cover. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires “the heating element is configured to produce heat across both the front side and the back side of the cover.” Gober teaches a front side and a back side and the heating element (20) positioned between the front side and a back side (Figs 2A-3). The heating element extends across both the front side and the back side of the cover as evident in Fig 2B. The heating element produces heat and thus produces heat across both the front side and the back side of the cover.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634